MISHNAH: One who robbed¹ 5:21–24. The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double. wood and turned it into utensils, wool and turned it into garments², pays their value at the time of the robbery. If he robbed a pregnant cow and it calved, a sheep in its wool and he shore it³, he pays the price of a pregnant cow ready to calve, or a sheep in its wool ready to be shorn. If he robbed a cow which became pregnant in his possession and it calved, or a sheep which grew wool with him and he shore it, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. This is the principle: All robbers pay for value at the time of the robbery.

footnotes: ¹ The robber, who takes things openly and by force, has to make restitution with possibly a 25% fine, Lev. ² Once the nature of the robbed item was changed, the robber became its owner and only owes the monetary value to the original owner. ³ And now it is not in the state in which it was robbed.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed wood and turned it into utensils,” etc. Here⁴, you say that bleaching is a change, and there⁵ you say that bleaching is not a change. If you say that bleaching is a change, if he made it into wool flakes⁶. If you say that bleaching is not a change, if he left it unchanged. We find bleaching without flakes. Are there flakes without bleaching⁷? Rebbi Yudan said, it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay their value at the time of the robbery⁸. If somebody robbed raw hide and cleaned it, can you say that he turned it into flakes⁹? Again it is a leniency instituted for the robber that he pay the value at the time of the robbery.

footnotes: ⁴ Tosephta 10:2 states that raw wool that was bleached does not have to be returned; only its value as raw wool has to be paid. Babli 93b. ⁵ The Mishnah, which says that only turning wool into a garment is a change by which the robber becomes the owner; this implies that cleaning, spinning, and dying the wool prior to weaving is not a change which absolves the robber from returning the wool as is. ⁶ Arabic صوفة, Samaritan Aramaic צוף. The wool flakes can be used to stuff pillows; they cannot be spun into thread. The robber changed raw material into a finished product. ⁷ At least the raw wool has to be washed before being turned into flakes. ⁸ Since robbers, in contrast to thieves, are known, it should be made easy for them to return the robbed goods and avoid prosecution. This is the position of the House of Hillel as explained in the next paragraph. The Mishnah represents the teaching of the House of Hillel. ⁹ Nonetheless, he only owes the value of the hide and cannot be forced to return it as is.

¹⁰55a. A different version of the entire paragraph is in Giṭṭin 5:5 (Notes 158–168).“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged¹¹. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged¹². If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel¹³ the reason is “because of civilization”, that one does not wilfully destroy houses, applicable worldwide.. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac¹⁴ Naḥman bar Jacob. This reading is also confirmed by the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a 101a. Since otherwise only Babylonian authorities of the first two generations are mentioned in Neziqin, L’s reading is a scribal error. asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him¹⁵ 101a, Rav Naḥman is quoted as letting the illegal builder take his materials instead of accepting the estimated value.? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement¹⁶. But if he built¹⁷ at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates¹⁸ for him¹¹ but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter¹⁹ 101a, that the person who planted is advantaged (Note 12) if the owner restricts entrance to the newly planted area.. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

footnotes: ¹⁰ Tosephta 10:5–7; Babli Giṭṭin ¹¹ He only can expect the lesser of his expenses or the value created. ¹² The Tosephta explains that he is entitled to the larger of his expenses or the value created. ¹³ In this version, the rule only applies to the Land of Israel. In the version in Giṭṭin ¹⁴ In E, the Genizah fragment, and in Giṭṭin: ¹⁵ Then why can the illegal builder not take his logs with him? In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a ¹⁶ A valid statement. ¹⁷ Without permission. ¹⁸ In E: “One listens”. ¹¹ He only can expect the lesser of his expenses or the value created. ¹⁹ “Him” refers to the legal owner of the land. It is explained in the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin²⁰, he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is²¹.

footnotes: ²⁰ This is a natural change; it is not enough to make the robber an owner. But since the Mishnah states that he has to give back the value at the time of robbery, he has to make up for value lost. Cf. Babli 65a for the case of a thief. ²¹ Since the robber never became the owner (cf. Note 2).

Because it became pregnant at his place and calved he pays its value at the time of the robbery²². Who stated this? Rebbi Jacob, as it was stated²³: “This is the principle about which Rebbi Jacob said: About any robbed object which exists as before and was not changed from the state in which it was created²⁴, he tells him: Here is your property before you. And the thief always pays the value at the time of theft.”

footnotes: ²² E has an addition: “Therefore, if it did not become pregnant at his place and calved he pays …” This addition is out of place. ²³ An anonymous statement in Tosephta 10:3. ²⁴ Even if now it is worthless as, e. g., leavened matter after Passover which was robbed before Passover. Since the deficiency is not visible, the robber can return the leavened matter to discharge his obligation while a thief has to pay double the value it had at the time of the theft.

MISHNAH: If he robbed an animal and it aged, slaves and they aged²⁵, he has to pay their value at the time of the robbery. Rebbi Meīr says, he may say about slaves: Here is your property before you²⁶ 3:1, Qiddušin 1:2 Notes 347 ff.) and real estate can never be acquired by a robber, for him a slave can never be acquired by a robber and ages as the original owner’s property..

footnotes: ²⁵ They do not look the same as at the time of the robbery and are not worth the same; the robber cannot return them but has to pay up. ²⁶ Since slaves are treated according to the law of real estate (Mishnah Bava batra

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed an animal and it aged,” etc. Rav Huna said, if he robbed a calf and it became a bull²⁷; but if he robbed a bull and it aged, he tells him: Here is your property before you²⁸. Samuel said, even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull, he tells him²⁹: Here is your property before you. Rav Qarna stated: Even if he robbed³⁰ a calf and it became a bull before he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple the value of a calf³¹. The father of Samuel bar Immi said in the name of Rav Jehudah³²: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr.

footnotes: ²⁷ This is a change in the nature of the animal; he cannot return it but must pay. ²⁸ In the Babli, 96b, Rav Pappa disagrees and holds that the weakened animal cannot be returned. ²⁹ He holds that it still is called cattle, not changed from the date of its birth. ³⁰ One has to read “stole” since robbers are not under the law of quadruple or quintuple restitution. ³¹ He follows Samuel that the bull is still the same animal as the calf. In the Babli, 65b, R. Ilai (La) is quoted as following the Mishnah and Rav Huna that the change of the calf into a bull is an essential change which lets the thief become the owner, not only the possessor, of the animal. If he slaughtered or sold the animal after it reached sexual maturity, he slaughtered or sold his own property and only pays double restitution for the theft. ³² The student of Samuel. In the Babli, 96b, the statement is in the name of Rav.

MISHNAH: If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery³³. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure³⁴, leavened matter and Passover passed³⁵, an animal which was used for sin³⁶, or which became disqualified from the altar³⁷, or which was taken out to be stoned³⁸, he tells him: Here is your property before you³⁹.

footnotes: ³³ In all these cases, the thing robbed was changed materially; it cannot be returned. ³⁴ It lost its value as food and only can be used as fuel. ³⁵ It is rabbinically forbidden for all usufruct. ³⁶ Either it was used for idolatry which makes it forbidden as sacrifice, or was used for bestiality which makes it subject to a death sentence. ³⁷ The living animal no longer can be offered as a sacrifice. ³⁸ After it killed a human. ³⁹ Since these defects are not visible, following R. Jacob the robbed objects can be returned as they are (Babli 98b).

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed a coin and it was split,” etc. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it. Samuel said, if really it was split⁴⁰. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they rotted because of maggots but if they rotted because of worms they are like healthy ones⁴¹. Rav Huna said, if the government invalidated it, but if the country invalidated it⁴² 8, Lešonēnū 37(1973) 105–112.), he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if the government invalidated it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Rav Huna considers a coin invalidated by the government as a piece of metal, not a coin. Therefore its nature was changed and it is as if it was split. Samuel considers an invalidated coin still as a coin. In the Babli, 97a, Rav Huna is quoted with the opinion here ascribed to Samuel, and Rav Jehudah, Samuel’s student, with that ascribed to Rav Huna. ⁴¹ This refers to the rotten fruits mentioned in the Mishnah. If the fruits were damaged by larvae but now are free of insects they are usable, not lost or changed. Before the days of pesticides almost no fruits were completely free of any insect damage. ⁴² As in the military anarchy of the Roman empire when the silver-washed copper coins given out as silver were no longer used by the public which switched to the gold standard (cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary

Rebbi Yudan did not go to the house of assembly. He met Rebbi Mana and asked him, what was new for you in the house of study today? He told him, such and such a subject. He replied, is that not a Mishnah, “heave and it became impure”? He replied, explain it if it became impure by itself⁴⁴ and you cannot infer anything.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ For example, if a dead reptile was found in the utensil containing the heave. Then it implies nothing about the status of the object if the robber caused the change.

Ḥilfai said, if he⁴⁵ swore to him before Passover, then after Passover he pays him for fully useable leavened matter. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who quoted this in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is there anybody who disagrees with Ḥilfai so that he would not have to pay for fully useable leavened matter? Everybody agrees about leavened matter that he has to pay for fully useable leavened matter.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ The robber was challenged by its owner to return to him his leavened matter before Passover and swore that he did not have it. Because of the oath he now is obligated for valuable leavened matter; he is barred from returning after Passover the leavened matter which now is worthless.

MISHNAH: If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it, they are liable. If one gave a chest, a box, or a cupboard to a woodworker to repair and he broke it, he is liable. And the builder who contracted to take down a wall is liable to pay if he ruined the stones or caused damage. If he was taking it down on one side when if collapsed on the other side he is not liable, but when it happened because of the pounding he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “If one gave something to artisans to repair and they broke it,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if he put in the last nail to acquire the rights to his utensils⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The Babli, 98a, infers from the second sentence of the Mishnah, which clearly refers to existing containers given to be fixed, that the “something” given in the first sentence is raw material, given to be turned into a utensil. The question then arises whether the artisan who ruins the utensil has to pay only for the material or for the finished utensil (since the client has to find another artisan and pay the latter.) About this question, Rav Huna (in the Babli, Rav Assi) notes that the artisan is liable only for the raw material as long as he did not put in the last nail. Once the object is finished, the artisan has the right to retain it until his bill be paid. Therefore, he then holds the object under the rules of the paid trustee and is liable for damage to it (Tosephta 10:8).

MISHNAH: If one gave wool to the dyer and the vat burned it, he gives him the value of his wool¹⁴⁸. If he dyed it poorly, if the increased value is more than the expenses⁴⁹, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value. To dye it red and he dyed it black, black and he dyed it red, Rebbi Meïr says, he gives him the value of his wool⁴⁷. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses; if the expenses are more than the increased value he gives him the increased value.

footnotes: ¹ By his unprofessional work he changed the material from his prior state and acquired it as his property for which he has to pay. ⁴⁸ In this case, the material is lost; it is impossible to refer to improved value. ⁴⁹ The dyer’s cash expenses for dye and fuel. ⁴⁷ By his unprofessional work he changed the material from his prior state and acquired it as his property for which he has to pay.

HALAKHAH: “If one gave wool to the dyer,” etc. Rav Huna said, if chemicals burned it⁵⁰, but if the vat burned it⁵¹, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even⁵² if chemicals burned it, he may say to him: Here is your property before you.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ The dye ruined the wool. ⁵¹ By overheating with too little fluid in the vat before dye was added. Then the wool was not changed from its original state. Rav Huna has to emend the text of the Mishnah. ⁵² This means: Only if chemicals burned it; otherwise one follows the text of the Mishnah.

What means “if the increased value is more than the expenses, he gives him his expenses”? A person gave to another five lots⁵³ אם, which read מנוי “portions” rather than מיני “kinds”. The same reading is found in שיטה מקובצת ad 100b. E starts the sentence by: אית בר נש “there is a man”. of wool, five portions of dye, and ten minas for his wages. He told him, dye it red, but the other dyed it black. He told him, if you had dyed it red, it would have been worth 25 minas, now that you dyed it black it is worth only 20 minas. You lost yours, I did not lose mine⁵⁴. Rebbi Jonah⁵⁵ said, you can understand from here that if a person gave to another eight denars to buy for him wheat in Tiberias but he bought for him in Sepphoris, he may say to him, if you had bought for me in Tiberias there would have been 25 modii⁵⁶ a Roman measure of volume, 64 quartarii, about 8.51, 2/3 of a se’ah.; now that you bought in Sepphoris there are only 20 modii. You lost yours, I did not lose mine⁵⁷ from the broker’s fee..

footnotes: ⁵³ The translation follows the reading of E and Tosaphot 100b, s.v. ⁵⁴ He deducts 5 minas from the dyer’s wages. This argument is about value, not cost. ⁵⁵ E and שיטה מקובצת read: R. Yose. ⁵⁶ Modius, ⁵⁷ He deducts the price of 5 modii

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him⁵⁸. We stated otherwise⁵⁹ 4:20.: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.⁶⁰” ⁶¹[He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer⁶² 6:12 (Notes 194–196), this opinion is attributed to R. Jehudah. Since ownership is transferred when the seller hands over the goods, it matters to whom the seller intended to transfer title. Usually the seller does not know whether the buyer is acting on his own account or as an agent; the law will have to tell the seller what to intend.. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money⁶³ 6:12 (Notes 194–196), this opinion is attributed to R. Yose. R. Meïr is not mentioned there.. Why does he (not)⁶⁴ §123. split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person⁶⁵ 117b, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan.. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat?⁶⁶ ⁶⁷[Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer⁶⁸. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him⁶⁵ 117b, this is a statement of R. Joḥanan..

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Since the agent did not fulfill the conditions of his agency, he acquired the barley for himself and has to carry the entire financial risk in selling the barley and buying wheat instead. Since the risk is entirely the agent’s, the eventual gain also is his. ⁵⁹ Tosephta Bava meṣi‘a ⁶⁰ The unfaithful agent is disadvantaged. Nevertheless, one has to find a reason for the unequal treatment of loss and gain. ⁶¹ Added from E; there is no Genizah text for the remainder of the Tractate. The addition seems necessary and the oversight of the Leiden scribe is easily explained. In the Babli, 102b, the identification of the Tannaїm is ascribed to R. Joḥanan who, however, is quoted there to the effect that R. Jehudah does not accept that unfaithful execution of an agency makes the agent the owner of the object acquired. ⁶² In Demay ⁶³ In Demay ⁶⁴ It seems that this word should be deleted; it is missing in the quote given by Bet Yosef, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ ⁶⁵ One should not trade with another person’s money. In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a ⁶⁶ According to R. Jehudah, anything bought through an agent should need another transfer of ownership from agent to principal. This clearly is not practice. ⁶⁷ Added from E, not in L. ⁶⁸ R. Nasa agrees with R. Joḥanan in practice but formulates it in a way applicable to any situation. ⁶⁵ One should not trade with another person’s money. In the Babli, Bava meṣi‘a

Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state⁶⁹ 6:5.: “Both the person who dedicates⁷⁰ and the one who vows his own valuation⁷¹. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas (Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339). exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.⁷²” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing⁷³ has nothing to do with our problem here since a vow is always subject to the exclusions stipulated by the person making the vow.. But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas⁷¹. 27:1–8 as valuation, which for an adult male is fixed in v. 3 as 50 holy sheqel, interpreted as 50 tetradrachmas (Qiddushin 1:1, Note 339).. If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge⁷⁴. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree⁷⁵ 9:1, Note 5). If stipulations are respected, the process of foreclosure of movables cannot be biblical. but only from the rabbis.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Mishnah ‘Arakhin ⁷⁰ He dedicates his entire property to the Temple. The administrators of the Temple have to foreclose all of his properties. ⁷¹ He vows the amount specified in Lev ⁷² The Mishnah there also excludes “dye which was dyed for them (the wife and children).” If R. Joḥanan is correct and by law the seller intends to benefit the owner of the money by which he is paid, who told the dyer or the clothier to transfer his intent from the husband, the giver of the money, to the wife and children, the beneficiaries? ⁷³ The problem in ‘Arakhin ⁷¹ He vows the amount specified in Lev ⁷⁴ Again, this is a reformulation of the previous statement in a form universally applicable. ⁷⁵ If the administrators of the Temple operated according to a biblical decree, all stipulations would be invalid (cf. Ketubot

MISHNAH: He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him⁷⁶5:23–25 makes it clear that after a false oath there can be no atonement nor any divine forgiveness until the falsely denied debt was paid in full. The “fifth” is computed from above, a fifth of the entire payment which is a fourth of the amount of the robbery. should deliver it to him even in Media⁷⁷. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent⁷⁸, but he may deliver to an agent of the court⁷⁹ 3:6)., and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital⁸⁰ but not the fifth¹ 5:21–24. The thief who takes things by stealth has to pay double.⁸¹, or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa’s worth of the capital⁸²’s worth is not money; cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 7., he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital⁸³’s worth, the process stops since that amount no longer represents money. becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely,⁸⁴ 5:21.” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The victim had asked him to return the robbed item when he swore that he had not robbed him. When later he admits to the robbery, Lev. ⁷⁷ Meaning any far-away place which is difficult to reach. ⁷⁸ While one can liquidate a debt through the creditor’s agent, one cannot fulfill the religious duty of restitution by proxy. ⁷⁹ Duly appointed in a public act at the request of the victim (cf. Bava meṣi‘a ⁸⁰ The value of the robbed item. ¹ The robber, who takes things openly and by force, has to make restitution with possibly a 25% fine, Lev. ⁸¹ The verse requires personal restitution. The additional 25% constitute a fine; it is additional money, not restitution, and can be liquidated by agent or by mail. ⁸² Less than a peruṭa ⁸³ As is explained in the Halakhah, the “capital” is the object of the false oath. For the embezzlement or robbery, the “fifth” is 25% of the original amount. For a false oath about these 25%, the additional fine is 6.25% of the original amount. In the next step, 1.5625% would have to be added and so on. But once the amount in dispute becomes less than a peruṭa ⁸⁴ Lev.

HALAKHAH: “He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Until the last fifth becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth⁸⁵. Rebbi Jonathan said: By handing over the fifth, the fifth becomes capital⁸⁶. This only applies with witnesses⁸⁷ 5:7) and Ḥizquni (Lev. 5:24) who require a simple fifth on the confession and two fifths on testimony of witnesses are based on the Yerushalmi. and at the time of sacrifices⁸⁸ הודה מעצמו..

footnotes: ⁸⁵ This refers to Mishnah 10, cf. Note 83. ⁸⁶ If the robber starts paying the fifth, it becomes capital in the terminology of the Mishnah. ⁸⁷ For if the robber confessed in presence of the victim and the latter agreed to be paid later, the sum becomes a loan and has to be paid under the law of loans rather than that of restitution; it can be repaid to the creditor’s agent. The Babli, 108a, disagrees and holds that the fifth be due only on the confession by the robber but not on the testimony of witnesses. The explanations of Ibn Ezra (Num. ⁸⁸ Since payment of the fifth is stated as a precondition to atonement by sacrifice, the payment of the fifth cannot be enforced in the absence of a Temple; cf. Rashi 63b, s.v.

MISHNAH: Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost⁸⁹’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’⁹⁰. If witnesses testify against him that he ate it, he pays the capital⁹¹. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was stolen’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he pays double restitution⁹² 22:8.. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice⁹³ 5:23–25.. He who robbed from his father and swore to him when he¹⁰² died has to pay capital and fifth to his sons or brothers¹⁰³ from the robbery remains in his hand.. But if he refuses¹⁰⁴, or does not have the money, he takes a loan and the creditors come and make themselves paid¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ As an unpaid trustee he does not have to pay if it was lost and the trustee never had used it for himself. ⁹⁰ This is the oath. ⁹¹ As a robber; cf. Note 87. ⁹² For the unpaid trustee who claimed falsely that the deposit was stolen, double restitution is required by Ex. ⁹³ Nobody pays multiple restitution on his own confession since a confession is not acceptable in a criminal trial. He pays a fifth and brings the sacrifice for the false oath, Lev. ¹⁰² The father. ¹⁰³ Since the Yerushalmi does not discuss this Mishnah, we do not know whether the intention is that the robber has to pay to the father’s brothers or other sons ot to his own sons or brothers. In any case he cannot obtain atonement as long as a peruṭa ¹⁰⁴ He does not want to pay anything to his family. ¹⁰⁵ He takes a loan, pays his obligations, and when the loan comes due directs the creditor to the recipients of his payments. Then he has fulfilled his obligation without losing any of his money.

HALAKHAH: “Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’,” etc. It was stated⁹⁴51b.: “One does not accept deposits from women, or slaves, or underage children⁹⁵. If one accepted from a woman, he should return it to her; if she died, he should return it to her husband⁹⁶. If one accepted from a slave, he should return it to him; if he died, he should return it to his master. From an underage child, he should return it to him, if he died he should return it to his father, and make it a safe investment⁹⁷. If any of these said at the moment of their death, it should be given to X because it is his property, one should follow his interpretation⁹⁸ p. 134..” Rebbi Zebida in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only before witnesses⁹⁹. As the following¹⁰⁰52a. There, the husband is Abba bar bar Ḥana. This is the correct attribution since Abba bar Ḥana, the elder R. Ḥiyya’s brother, died before the birth of his son, therefore also before his wife. In Halakhah 10:1, “R. Abba bar Ḥana” speaks of “my oncle R. Ḥiyya”. This proves that the person called Abba bar Ḥana in the Yerushalmi is called Abba bar bar Ḥana in the Babli.: When Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana’s wife was dying, she said, these rings belong to my daughter. But he said no, they are mine. The case came before Rav who said, people are not given to lying at the time of their death¹⁰¹ 175a..

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Tosephta 11:1; Babli Bava batra ⁹⁵ Since usually they have no independent property, one has to suspect that the deposit might be stolen property. ⁹⁶ Who is her heir. ⁹⁷ It seems that this sentence should be rearranged as in the Tosephta: “From an underage child, he should make it a safe investment, return it to him (once he reaches the age in which he legally can do business); if he died he should return it to his father.” ⁹⁸ The translation follows the extensive discussion of the expression פירוש לפירושו by S. Lieberman in Tosefta kiFshutah Neziqin, ⁹⁹ Dispositions of a last will which do not follow the general rule should be executed only in the presence of witnesses, to protect the trustee against claims of the legal heirs. ¹⁰⁰ Another version of the same story is told in the Babli, Bava batra ¹⁰¹ A statement of Rava in the Babli, Bava batra

MISHNAH: If somebody says to his son: A qônām¹⁰⁶ 1:1. that you cannot enjoy anything from me, when he dies he can inherit from him¹⁰⁷. During my lifetime and after my death, when he dies he cannot inherit from him but should give it¹⁰⁸ to his sons or his brothers, and if he has nothing¹⁰⁹ he may take a loan; the creditors come and make themselves paid¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ An expression of making a vow; Mishnah Nedarim ¹⁰⁷ Since a deceased person has no property, the estate is no longer the father’s money. ¹⁰⁸ The inheritance. ¹⁰⁹ To eat. ¹⁰⁵ He takes a loan, pays his obligations, and when the loan comes due directs the creditor to the recipients of his payments. Then he has fulfilled his obligation without losing any of his money.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. ¹¹⁰ 5:2, explained there in Notes 35–43. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ This text is a reformulation of a text in Nedarim

MISHNAH: One who robbed from a proselyte¹¹¹, swore to him, and [the proselyte] died, has to pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar as it is said¹¹² 5:8: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation shall be returned to the Eternal, to the priests, except for the atonement ram by which he can reach atonement.” While the sacrificial meat of the ram is eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard, they eat from the Eternal’s table and it never becomes their property.: “If the man has no heirs to give the reparation to, the reparation etc.” If he was bringing the money and the reparation offering when he¹¹³ died, the money should be given to his sons¹¹⁴ and the reparation offering¹¹⁵ shall graze until it becomes disqualified¹¹⁶ 1:3)., then be sold, and the amount be given for voluntary offerings¹¹⁷. If he had given the money to the men of the watch¹¹⁸ when he died, the heirs cannot ask it back from them since it is said¹¹⁹ 5:10.: “What a man give to a Cohen shall be the latter’s.”

footnotes: ¹¹¹ Who failed to start a Jewish family. By becoming a Jew, he became a new person, no longer related to his previous Gentile family. ¹¹² Num. ¹¹³ The robber. ¹¹⁴ His death was atonement. Since he does not need atonement after death, the money does not need to be given to the priests; it becomes part of the estate. ¹¹⁵ If it was dedicated as such by its owner, the dedication cannot be undone. ¹¹⁶ As a sacrifice, either by developing a defect or outliving its third birthday (Mishnah Parah ¹¹⁷ The account from which elevation offerings were paid if otherwise the altar would have been empty. ¹¹⁸ The priests were organized into 24 watches; each watch served from one Sabbath morning to the next. The watch on duty had the exclusive rights to all emoluments accruing to priests during their term of office. ¹¹⁹ Num.

HALAKHAH: “One who robbed from a proselyte,” etc. Ḥilfai and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, this is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s, as Rebbi Yose the Galiean explained: Of what does the verse speak? About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar. “If the man have no relative,” he who needs atonement is obligated; this excludes the one who does not need atonement. Rebbi Aqiba explained when he came from Zephyrium¹²⁰: About one who robbed from a proselyte, swore to him, who then died, that he would pay the capital and the fifth to the priests and the reparation offering to the altar, as it is said: “If the man have no relative,” etc. The only person in Israel who has no relative is the proselyte. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is Rebbi Aqiba’s who said that the wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case¹²¹ #4 (Num. rabba8(7), Yalquṭ #701). Both R. Yose the Galilean and R. Aqiba agree that “the man without relative” must be a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family. (In Sifry, this statement is attributed to R. Ismael.) The rules of inheritance imply that the property of the deceased proselyte becomes ownerless; therefore anything held by another person at the proselyte’s death becomes property of the holder. If the robber confessed his guilt after the proselyte’s death, the money becomes the Eternal’s property Who gives it to the priests. If the robber confessed his guilt to the proselyte, even if the proselyte agrees to payment at a later date, turning the debt into a loan, when he dies the robber does not acquire the money since he cannot atone for his guilt as long as the money is in his hand. If the robber dies before he returned the money, for R. Yose the Galilean the money becomes part of the robber’s estate since the dead “do not need atonement.” R. Aqiba holds that the money does not become part of the estate since “wrongly acquired property has to be returned in any case,” and the heirs have to turn the money over to the priests. Sifry notes that R. Aqiba agreed with R. Yose the Galilean before he went to Zephyrium but there changed his opinion. (The Tosephta attributes R. Yose the Galilean’s argument to R. Aqiba)..

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Possibly the town in Cyprus (Cape Paphos). ¹²¹ The paragraph is elliptic; its meaning can be ascertained from the parallels in the Babli 109a, Tosephta 10:16,17, Sifry Num.

MISHNAH: If he gave the money to Yehoiarib and the reparation offering to Yedaiah¹²²24:7–18, Yehoiarib is the first and Yedaiah the second watch. The restitution may precede the offering but cannot follow it. As explained at the end of the Mishnah, the reparation offering (whether for swearing falsely to a native born Jew or to a proselyte) cannot be accepted by the Temple if it was not ascertained that restitution was made since both in Lev. 5:25 as in *Num.*5:8 the sacrifice is clearly demanded after restitution had been made. There can be no ritual cleansing if the human aspect was not attended to., he has fulfilled his obligation. The reparation offering to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, if the offering still is alive it should be brought by Yedaiah¹²³ 18:8).; otherwise he was to come back and bring another reparation offering; for he who brings the robbed item before he brings the reparation offering has fulfilled his obligation, but he who brings the reparation offering before he brings the robbed item has not fulfilled his obligation. If he paid the capital but not the fifth, the fifth is no obstacle¹²⁴.

footnotes: ¹²² In the list of watches, 1Chr. ¹²³ Since the priests of Yehoiarib have no right to officiate in Yedaiah’s week; this is the “right sold by the forefathers” (Deut. ¹²⁴ Non-payment of the fifth does not invalidate the sacrifice but the sacrifice does not absolve from paying the fifth at a later date.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree¹²⁵ quoted in the following; paralleled in Tosephta 10:18 (Babli 111a), except that in the text here the disagreement is missing. about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation.¹²⁶ Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch¹²⁷, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days¹²⁸, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah¹²⁹ to the men of Yedaiah.” shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ There is no disagreement in the Mishnah. The entire Halakhah is based on the baraita ¹²⁶ What is missing here is the statement of the diagreement: “If the offering was given to Yehoiarib and the money to Yedaiah, R. Jehudah requires the money to be transferred to the offerers of the sacrifice, the Sages that the sacrifice be transferred to the recipients of the money.”Both watches acted incorrectly by not checking whether the money had been delivered before the sacrifice. If each watch received their part during their week then clearly the situation is that of the Mishnah where a new offering is needed if the first one is not available to the second watch. But if the second watch received the money at the same time the first received the sacrifice, then R. Jehudah and the Sages disagree about who has to give up his part. ¹²⁷ The sacrifice one week before the delivery of the money. ¹²⁸ The watch cannot keep the animal for 24 weeks until their turn comes again. ¹²⁹ In E: “Yehoiarib”. This clearly is a corruption. But the text common to both mss. is also incorrect. Since the hypothesis was that the money had been given to Yehoiarib, it is clear that one has to read: “One has to transfer the money from the men of Yehoiarib